Campaign Finance

Disclosure - "is the most basic form of campaign finance regulation. All states require some level of disclosure from candidates, committees, and political parties of the amount and source of contributions and expenditures. The states vary in disclosure requirements and reporting frequency."

Public Financing - "Some have programs that provide public funds for use in election campaigns. These programs may provide funds directly to individual candidates or to political parties, or provide tax incentive to citizens who make political contributions."

Contribution Limits - "One of the most common means of regulating money in elections is through the imposition of limits on the amount of money any group or individual can contribute to a campaign. This page provides an overview of the types of restrictions states place on contribution limits, and gives examples of certain statutory restrictions."

Explain the circumstances and significance of each of the following Supreme Court decisions.  Include answers to the clarifying questions.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

Contribution limits are constitutional, expenditure limits are not. (1) limit and require disclosure of contributions, (2) limit expenditures, and (3) mandate participation in a publically financed presidential election program

What’s the difference between a “contribution” and an “expenditure”?

independent expenditure

In candidate elections, an independent expenditure is a payment for a communication expressly supporting or opposing a candidate for elective office that is not made at the behest of a candidate or any agent of the candidate. A payment is made at the behest of a candidate if it is made at the request, suggestion, or direction of the candidate, is coordinated with the candidate, or is otherwise made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with the candidate.

Any person or entity can make an independent expenditure to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure. Keep in mind, however, that anyone making $1,000 or more in independent expenditures has become a "committee" and will be required to file documents to disclose its expenditures.

What is the difference between a contribution and an independent expenditure?

A contribution is given to someone else to spend. For example, if a person gives $100 to a candidate, that person has made a contribution. The candidate may spend that $100 on advertising, flyers, billboards, or anything else he or she wants. Moreover, if a person spends $100 at the behest of a candidate or the candidate's committee, that payment is also a contribution. On the other hand, if a person spends money on advertising, flyers, etc. to support a candidate, but does so in a manner that is completely independent of the candidate, he or she has made an independent expenditure.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)

This case was the first to recognize the link between “soft money” and corruption.  his case is the court’s reaction to the passage of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002. BCRA imposed bans on soft money (money contributed to political parties for purposes other than supporting or opposing a candidate, such as to run voter registration drives), and placed limits on advertising by corporations and PACs immediately preceding an election. Because “there is substantial evidence to support Congress’ determination that large soft-money contributions to national political parties give rise to corruption and the appearance of corruption,” this provision of the BCRA was upheld. Later, in Citizens United, the court overruled the portion of McConnell that allowed prohibitions on corporate independent expenditures. 

                What is a PAC (pronounced, “pack”) 

Political Action Committee (PAC) — A popular term for a political committee organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates. Most PACs represent business, labor or ideological interests. PACs can give $5,000 to a candidate committee per election (primary, general or special). They can also give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee, and $5,000 annually to any other PAC. PACs may receive up to $5,000 from any one individual, PAC or party committee per calendar year. A PAC must register with the FEC within 10 days of its formation, providing name and address for the PAC, its treasurer and any connected organizations. Affiliated PACs are treated as one donor for the purpose of contribution limits.

What is soft money?

1. a contribution to a political party that is not accounted as going to a particular candidate, thus avoiding various legal limitations.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

States cannot place limits on the amount of money corporations, unions, or PACs use for electioneering communications, as long as the group does not directly align itself with a candidate. The limits on advertising by corporations and PACs that helped frame the McConnell decision came into play again during the 2008 presidential campaign. When Citizens United tried to run ads critical of Senator Hillary Clinton close to the 2008 Democratic primary, it was barred from doing so by the BCRA. When brought to the Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts, on behalf of the majority, struck down provisions of the BCRA that prohibited corporations, unions, and PACs from making independent expenditures and election communications, as “the government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity.” After this decision, corporations and unions can spend unlimited sums of money on ads and other communications designed to support or oppose a candidate. Corporations are still prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates, but can contribute unlimited sums to organizations, such as Super PACs and 501(c)4s, that support or oppose a candidate 

Ben Carson campaign in Crisis

Top players in Carson's orbit are bickering in public and his unorthodox campaign structure is proving to be more of a liability than an asset to the political neophyte. At the center of the fighting is Armstrong Williams, Carson's media-savvy business manager and longtime friend, who doesn't have an official role in the campaign, and Carson's official campaign leadership.He is blaming the campaign team for putting the candidate in situations that have embarrassed him, such as with the recent Republican Jewish Coalition speech where Carson repeatedly mispronounced the name of Palestinian group Hamas."A top fundraiser left earlier this month, citing a problem with Carson's leadership team. Poor communication led to an embarrassing New York Times story that raised questions about Carson's grasp of foreign policy. And a recent speech suggested that Carson, who as a young doctor obsessively prepared and studied, lacked fluency in international affairs." He just released a plan for health care reform. He's traveling to Africa for a three-country tour. And his campaign just announced the addition of another foreign policy adviser. While the future is looking iffy for Carson, he has complete faith in his campaign team. His easygoing nature is likable but also concerning. He gives a lot of his campaign power to his team and does whatever they tell him to, whether it puts him in a good or bad situation. I don't know if this is necessarily a good thing. He also is saying that the recent drop in his poll standings is just "the nature of the campaign". I feel like he should be more concerned about it. 

Justice Department launches civil rights probe of Chicago police

Because of the delayed release of a video showing a white Chicago police officer shooting a black teenager 16 times, the Justice Department has decided to run an investigation of the Chicago police department. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is opening an investigation into their "use of deadly force" and "its accountability mechanisms." The probe, Lunch said, will determine whether Chicago police have "engaged in a pattern or practice of violations of the Constitution or federal law." "Our goal in this investigation... is not to focus on individuals but to improve systems. We understand that the same systems that fail community members also fail conscientious officers by creating mistrust between law enforcement and the citizens they are sworn to serve and protect," she says. "This mistrust from members of the community makes it more difficult to gain help with investigations, to encourage victims and witnesses of crimes to speak up, and to fulfill the most basic responsibilities of public safety officials," Lynch said. "And when suspicion and hostility is allowed to fester, it can erupt into unrest." Due to the recent string of big civil rights cases, this one calls for attention and investigation immediately. The Chicago City Council signed off on a $5 million settlement with McDonald's family even before the family filed a lawsuit, and city officials fought in court for months to keep the video from being released publicly. The city's early efforts to suppress its release coincided with Emanuel's re-election campaign, when the mayor was seeking African-American votes in a tight race.I have a lot of problems with this story. I wish that cases like this weren't so blown up but I recognize why they have to be. However, I think a negative effect of media focus on these types of things is when college students take things into their own hands "defending justice" and what not. I believe the policeman should be fired and their justice system should be changed. There's a lot of old systems and rules about law enforcement nationwide that are out of date and need to be adjusted. 

Who is leading the polls for Democrats and Republicans?

For Republicans, Trump has moved up to 35% of Republican primary voters, which is 13 points higher than last month. Ted Cruz has 16% and moved down to second place. Ben Carson is now in third even though he was in the lead during October. Marco Rubio is in fourth with 9% and Jeb Bush comes in second to last with a mere 3%, followed only by Carly Fiorina with 1%. The thing to take in consideration here is that these polls were completed BEFORE Trump made statements about the ban of Muslims. Trump supporters are still strong in their choice. 51% say they completely support him. He is attracting more non-college graduates also.Cruz is going for the evangelicals now that Carson is starting to fall behind. Now the Democrats are another story. Hillary Clinton seems to have the clear lead. Shes up by 20 points, reeling in a solid 52% compared to Bernie Sanders 32%. Martin O'Malley is barely in the race due to his 2% support. Clinton is appealing to lots of demographics but mostly people over 45, where Sanders is getting more support from those under 45. Clinton's supporters are also more firm in their choice than Sanders. While it doesn't seem like most voters are very enthusiastic about their choices, there's a lot more anxiety about a Trump presidency than a Clinton one, which is understandable. 63% of democrats say they would be scared of a Trump presidency. Independent voters don't like either candidate, Clinton or Trump, they have more concern with Trump than Clinton. Personally I don't think Trump could be a president of a country. That sounds like the worst possible thing that could happen. I don't see anything good coming out of that. It surprises me that he still gets so much support after all the terrible things he has said/done. While I don't necessarily support Clinton, I take her a lot more seriously than ole Donald.

UK signs petition to ban Trump from entering country

An online petition calls on U.K. Home Secretary Theresa May to bar the Republican presidential frontrunner from entering the country for allegedly violating the nation's hate-speech laws. If it gets to 100,000 signatures, it goes up for debate in the House of Commons. It says: “The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. This same principle should apply to Donald J Trump. We cannot see how the United Kingdom can condone his entry to the country when many people have been barred for less. 

If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the ‘unacceptable behavior’ criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful." Tyler the Creator and Pamela Geller have also been banned from entering. As of right now, it has over 300k signatures. Trump's remarks prompted outrage at home and internationally. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the comments effectively "disqualifies him from serving as president." "Donald Trump's ill-informed comments are complete and utter nonsense," Johnson said. "The only reason I wouldn't go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump." I think this is where Trump has finally crossed the line, forever. He can't go back now. It's not just him saying what he really thinks, he is literally committing hate speech. It's racist and completely insensitive and disrespectful. I think this incident will cost him whatever chance he had of getting elected. It's unspeakable really. 

Gun problem - this time is it ISIS?

Last week, 14 people were killed in San Bernardino, California, and it is believed that the shooters planned their attack. Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik practiced at gun ranges in the Los Angeles area and their target practice occurred within days of the shooting. Investigators say they "were radicalized and have been for quite some time." President Barack Obama and law enforcement officials call an act of terrorism. So far investigators haven't found any evidence of a plot for the attack extending outside the continental United States. "Right now, we're looking at these two individuals," Bowdich said, "and we are beginning to focus, to build it out from there." "Sources told CNN that investigators believe Malik was radicalized at least two years ago, well before she came to the United States with Farook on a fiancee visa and before ISIS proclaimed its caliphate. Authorities are looking into whether she pushed her husband to adopt more extremist views." Authorities raided a home owned by Malik's father, removing items from the unoccupied space coming out with no red flags. The family supposedly knew nothing. They even had a 6-month-old baby. "Farook's father told an Italian newspaper that his son supported ISIS' ideology of establishing an Islamic caliphate. "He said he shared the ideology of (ISIS leader Abu Bakr) al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state, and he was fixated on Israel," the elder Farook told La Stampa newspaper." When the father remembered the first time he saw his son with a gun, he said this: "I became angry. In 45 years in the United States, I yelled, 'I have never had a weapon.' He shrugged his shoulders and replied, 'Your loss,' " the father said. Obama called the San Bernardino attack "an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people." "The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here's what we know: The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their co-workers and his wife," he said. "So far we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home." Before Farook's father made news, ISIS hailed the couple as "supporters" of the terror group. The FBI has said it is treating the attack as an act of terrorism. "Malik had posted to Facebook a pledge of allegiance to ISIS leader Baghdadi, three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation said." Additional security guards have been posted at county offices and other security measures are in place, Ramos said. Personally this really scares me. Anyone who lives in the US has access to guns and it doesn't matter if they support ISIS or not. We are literally placing the power to kill us in their hands. I have lots of problems with the amount of gun control we have, and to me, this story just strengthens my views. It's terrifying. It is literally terrorism. This time it's happening right in our own backyard.